I met Beckett in 1981, when I sent him, with no introduction, a book I'd
written, and to my astonishment he read the book and replied almost at once.
Six weeks later, his note having emboldened me to seek a meeting, our paths
crossed in London, and he invited me to sit in on the rehearsals of
Endgame which he was then conducting with a group of American actors
for a Dublin opening in May.

It was a happy time for him. Away from his desk where his work, he said
(I've never heard him say otherwise) was not going well at all, he was
exploring a work which, though he'd written it thirty years before, remained
among his favorites. The American group, called the San Quentin Theatre
Workshop because they had discovered his work — through a visiting production
of Waiting for Godot — while inmates at San Quentin, was particularly
close to his heart, and working in London he was accessible to the close-knit
family that collects so often where he or his work appears. Among those who
came to watch were Billie Whitelaw, Irene Worth, Nicole Williamson, Alan
Schneider, Israel Horowitz, Siobhan O'Casey (Sean's daughter), three writers
with Beckett books in progress, two editors who'd published him and one who
wanted to, and an impressive collection of madmen and Beckett freaks who had
learned of his presence via the grapevine. One lady, in her early twenties,
came to ask if Beckett minded that she'd named her dog after him (Beckett:
"Don't worry about me. What about the dog?"), and a wild-eyed madman from
Scotland brought flowers and gifts for Beckett and everyone in the cast and
a four-page letter entitled "Beckett's Cancer, Part Three," which begged him
to accept the gifts as "a sincere token of my deep and long-suffering love for
you" while remembering that "I also hold a profound and comprehensive loathing
for you, in response to all the terrible corruption and suffering which you
have seen fit to inflict upon my entirely innocent personality."

The intimacy and enthusiasm with which Beckett greeted his friends as well as
newcomers like myself — acting for all the world as if I'd done him an
enormous favor to come — was a great surprise for me, one of many ways in
which our meetings would force me to reconsider the conception of him which I
had formed during the twenty years I'd been reading and, let's be honest about
it, worshipping him. Who would expect the great master of grief and disenchantment
to be so expansive, so relaxed in company? Well, as it turned out, almost
everyone who knew him. My surprise was founded not in his uncharacteristic
behavior but in the erroneous, often bizarre misunderstandings that had
gathered about him in my mind. Certainly, if there's one particular legacy
that I take from our meetings it is the way in which those misunderstandings
were first revealed and then corrected. In effect, Beckett's presence
destroyed the Beckett myth for me, replacing it with something at once larger
and more ordinary. Even today I haven't entirely understood what this
correction meant to me, but it's safe to say that the paradoxical effects of
Beckett incarnate — inspiring and disheartening, terrifying, reassuring, and
humbling in the extreme — are nowhere at odds with the work that drew me to
him in the first place.

The first surprise was the book to which he responded. Because it was
journalism — an investigation of the world of neurosurgery — I had been
almost embarrassed to send it, believing that he of all people would not be
interested in the sort of information I'd collected. No, what I imagined
he'd really appreciate was the novel that had led me to neurosurgery, a book
to which I had now returned which dealt with brain damage, and I presented it with
an ambiguity and dark humor that, as I saw it, clearly signaled both his
influence and my ambition to go beyond it. As it turned out, I had things
exactly backward. For the novel, the first two chapters of which he read in
London, he had little enthusiasm, but the nonfiction book continued to interest
him. Whenever I saw him he questioned me about neurosurgery, asking, for
example, exactly how close I had stood to the brain while observing surgery
or how much pain a craniotomy entailed or, one day during lunch at rehearsals:
"How is the skull removed?" and "Where do they put the skull bone while
they're working inside?" Though I'd often heard it said of him that he read
nothing written after 1950, he remembered the names of the patients I'd
mentioned and inquired as to their condition, and more than once he expressed
his admiration for the surgeons. Later he did confess to me that he read very
little, finding what he called "the intake" more and more "excruciating", but I
doubt that he ever lost his interest in certain kinds of information,
especially those which concerned the human brain. "I have long believed,"
he'd written me in his first response to my book, "that here in the end is the
writer's best chance, gazing into the synaptic chasm."

Seventy-four years old, he was very frail in those days, even more gaunt and
wizened than his photos had led me to expect, but neither age nor frailty
interfered with his sense of humor. When I asked him one morning at the theatre
how he was doing, he replied with a great display of exhaustion and what
I took to be a sly sort of gleam in his eye, "No improvement." Another day,
with an almost theatrical sigh, "A little wobbly." How can we be surprised that
on the subject of his age he was not only unintimidated but challenged, even
inspired? Not five minutes into our first conversation he brought us round to
the matter: "I always thought old age would be a writer's best chance. Whenever
I read the late work of Goethe or W. B. Yeats I had the impertinence to
identify with it. Now my memory's gone, all the old fluency's disappeared. I
don't write a single sentence without saying to myself, 'It's a lie!' So I know
I was right. It's the best chance I've ever had." Two years later — and
older — he explored the same thoughts again in Paris. "It's a paradox, but
with old age, the more the possibilities diminish, the better chance you have.
With diminished concentration, loss of memory, obscured intelligence — what
you, for example, might call 'brain damage' — the more chance there is for
saying something closest to what one really is. Even though everything seems
inexpressible, there remains the need to express. A child needs to make a sand
castle even though it makes no sense. In old age, with only a few grains of
sand one has the greatest possibility." Of course, he knew that this was not a
new project for him, only a more extreme version of the one he'd always set
himself, what he'd laid out so clearly in his famous line from
The Unnamable: "...it will be the silence, where I am, I don't know,
I'll never know, in the silence you don't know, you must go on, I can't go on,
I'll go on." It was always here, in "the clash," as he put it to me once,
"between can't and must" that he took his stand. "How is it that a man who is
completely blind and completely deaf must see and hear? It's this impossible
paradox which interests me. The unseeable, the unbearable, the inexpressible."
Such thoughts of course were as familiar to me as they would be to any
attentive reader of Beckett, but it was always amazing to hear how
passionately — and innocently — he articulated them. Given the pain in his
voice, the furrowed, struggling concentration on his face, it was impossible to
believe that he wasn't unearthing these thoughts for the first time. Absurd as
it sounds, they seemed less familiar to him than to me. And it was no small
shock to realize this. To encounter, I mean, the author of some of the greatest
work in our language and find him, at seventy-four, discovering his vision in
your presence. His excitement alone was riveting, but for me the greatest shock
was to see how intensely he continued to work on the issues that had
preoccupied him all his life. So much so that it didn't matter where he was or
who he was with, whether he was literally "at work" or in a situation that
begged for small talk. I don't think I ever had a conversation with him in
which I wasn't, at some point, struck by an almost naive realization of his
sincerity, as if reminding myself that he was not playing the role one expected
him to play but simply pursuing the questions most important to him. Is it
possible that no one surprises us more than someone who is (especially when our
expectations have been hyperbolic) exactly what we expect? It was as if a voice
in me said, "My God, he's serious!" or, "So he's meant it all along!" And this
is where my misunderstandings became somewhat embarrassing. Why on earth should
he have surprised me? What did it say of my own sense of writing and reading or
the culture from which I'd come that integrity in a writer — for this was
after all the simple fact that he was demonstrating — should have struck me
as so extraordinary?

Something else he said that first night in London was familiar to me from one
of his published interviews, but he said this, too, as if he'd just come upon it
and hearing it now I felt that I understood for the first time that aspect
of his work which interested me the most. I'm speaking of its intimacy and
immediacy, the uncanny sense that he's writing not only in a literary but an
existential present tense, or more precisely, as John Pilling calls it in his
book Samuel Beckett, an imperfect tense. The present tense of course is
no rare phenomenon in modern, or for that matter, classical fiction, but unlike
most writers who write in the present, Beckett writes from
the present and remains constantly vulnerable to it. It is a difference of
which he is acutely aware, one which distinguishes him even from a writer he
admires as much as he does Kafka. As he said in a 1961 interview, "Kafka's
form is classic, it goes on like a steamroller, almost serene. It seems to be
threatened all the time, but the consternation is in the form. In my work there
is consternation behind the form, not in the form." It is for this reason that
Beckett himself is present in his work to a degree that, as I see it, no other
writer managed before him. In most of his published conversations, especially
when he was younger and not (as later) embarrassed to speak didactically, he
takes the position that such exposure is central to the work that he considers
interesting. "If anything new and exciting is going on today, it is the attempt
to let Being into art." As he began to evolve a means by which to accommodate
such belief he made us realize not only the degree to which Being had been
kept out of art but why it had been kept out, how such exclusion is,
even now, the raison d'etre of most art and how the game changes, the
stakes rising exponentially, once we let it in. Invaded by real time, narrative
time acquires an energy and a fragility and, not incidentally, a truth which
undermines whatever complacency or passivity the reader — not to mention the
writer — has brought to the work, the assumption that enduring forms are to
be offered, that certain propositions will rise above the flux, that "pain-killers,"
which Hamm seeks in vain throughout Endgame, will be provided. In effect,
the narrative illusion is no longer safe from the narrator's reality. "Being,"
as he said once, "is constantly putting form in danger," and the essence of his
work is its willingness to risk such danger. Listen to the danger he risks in
this sentence from Molloy: "A and C I never saw again. But perhaps I
shall see them again. But shall I be able to recognize them? And am I sure I
never saw them again?"

The untrustworthy narrator, of course, had preceded Beckett by at least a
couple of centuries, but his "imperfect" tense deprives Molloy of the great
conceit that most authors have traditionally granted their narrators — a
consistent, dependable memory, in effect a brain that is neither damaged in
that it doesn't suffer from amnesia, nor normal in that it is consistent,
confident of the information it contains and immune to the assaults that time
and environment mount on its continuities. But Beckett's books are not
about uncertainty any more than they're about consternation.
Like their author, like the Being which has invaded them, they are themselves
uncertain, not only in their conclusions but in their point of view. Form is
offered because, as he has so often remarked, that is an obligation before
which one is helpless, but any pretense that it will endure is constantly shown
to be just that, pretense and nothing more, a game the author can no longer
play and doesn't dare relinquish. "I know of no form," he said, "that does not
violate the nature of Being in the most unbearable manner." Simply stated, what
he brought to narrative fiction and drama was a level of reality that dwarfed
all others that had preceded it. And because the act of writing — i.e., his
own level of reality, at the moment of composition — is never outside his
frame of reference, he exposes himself to the reader as no writer has before
him. When Molloy changes his mind it's because Beckett has changed his mind as
well, when the narrative is inconsistent it's not an esthetic trick but an
accurate reflection of the mind from which that narrative springs. Finally,
what Molloy doesn't know, Beckett doesn't know either. And this is why, though
they speak of Joyce or Proust or other masters in terms of genius, so many
writers will speak of Beckett in terms of courage. One almost has to be a
writer to know what courage it takes to stand so naked before one's reader or,
more importantly, before oneself, to relinquish the protection offered by
separation from the narrative, the security and order which, in all likelihood,
are what draws one to writing in the first place.

That evening, speaking of Molloy and the work that followed it, he told
me that, returning to Dublin after the war, he'd found that his mother had
contracted Parkinson's Disease. "Her face was a mask, completely unrecognizable.
Looking at her, I had a sudden realization that all the work I'd done before
was on the wrong track. I guess you'd have to call it a revelation. Strong
word, I know, but so it was. I simply understood that there was no sense adding
to the store of information, gathering knowledge. The whole attempt at
knowledge, it seemed to me, had come to nothing. It was all haywire. What I had
to do was investigate not-knowing, not-perceiving, the whole world of
incompleteness." In the wake of this insight, writing in French ("Perhaps
because French was not my mother tongue, because I had no facility in it, no
spontaneity") while still in his mother's house, he had begun Molloy
(the first line of which is "I am in my mother's room"), thus commencing what
was to be the most prolific period of his life. Within the first three
paragraphs of his chronicle, Molloy says "I don't know" six times, "perhaps"
and "I've forgotten" twice each and "I don't understand" once. He doesn't know how
he came to be in his mother's room, and he doesn't know how to write anymore,
and he doesn't know why he writes when he manages to do so, and he doesn't know
whether his mother was dead when he came to her room or died later, and he
doesn't know whether or not he has a son. In other words, he is not an awful
lot different from any other writer in the anxiety of composition: considering
the alternative roads offered up by his imagination; trying to discern a theme
among the chaos of messages offered by his brain; testing his language to see
what sort of relief it can offer. Thus, Molloy and his creator are joined from
the first, and the latter — unlike most of his colleagues who have been
taught, even if they're writing about their own ignorance and uncertainty, that
the strength of their work consists in their ability to say the opposite — is
saying "I don't know" with every word he utters. The whole of the narrative is
therefore time-dependent, neurologically and psychologically suspect and
contingent on the movement of the narrator's mind. And since knowledge, by
definition, requires a subject and an object, a knower and a known, two points
separated on the temporal continuum, Beckett's "I don't know" has short circuited
the fundamental dualism upon which all narrative, and for that matter, all
language, has before him been constructed. If the two points cannot be
separated on the continuum, what is left? No time, only the present tense. And
if you must speak at this instant, using words which are by definition
object-dependent, how do you do so? Finally, what is left to know if knowledge
itself has been, at its very root, discredited? Without an object, what will
words describe or subjugate? If subject and object are joined, how can there be
hope or memory or order? What is hoped for, what is remembered, what is ordered?
What is Self if knower and known are not separated by self-consciousness?

Those are the questions that Beckett has dealt with throughout his life. And
before we call them esoteric or obtuse, esthetic, philosophical or literary,
we'd do well to remember that they're not much different from the questions
many of us consider, consciously or not, in the course of an ordinary
unhysterical day, the questions which, before Molloy and his successors, had
been excluded, at least on the surface, from most of the books we read. As
Beckett wrote once to Alan Schneider, "The confusion is not my invention ... It
is all around us and our only chance is to let it in. The only chance of
renovation is to open our eyes and see the mess ... There will be a new form, and
... this form will be of such a type that it admits the chaos and does not try
to say that it is really something else."

At the time of his visit with his mother, Beckett was thirty nine years old
which is to say the same age as Krapp, who deals with a similar revelation in
his tape-recorded journals and ends (this knowledge, after all, being no more
durable than any other) by rejecting it: "What a fool I was to take that for a
vision!" That evening, however, as we sat in his hotel room, there was no
rejection in Beckett's mind. In the next three years, he told me, he wrote
Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable, Stories and Texts for Nothing,
and — in three months, with almost no revision of the first draft —
Waiting for Godot. The last, he added, was "pure recreation." The novels,
especially The Unnamable, had taken him to a point where there were no
limits, and Godot was a conscious attempt to reestablish them. "I wanted
walls I could touch, rules I had to follow." I asked if his revelation — the
understanding, as he'd put it, that all his previous work had been a lie —
had depressed him. "No, I was very excited! There was no effort in the writing.
I worked all day and went out to the cafes at night."

He was visibly excited by the memory, but it wasn't long before his mood
shifted and his excitement gave way to sadness and nostalgia. The contrast
between the days he had remembered and the difficulty he was having now —
"racking my brains," as he put it, "to see if I can go a little farther" —
was all too evident. Sighing loudly, he put his long fingers over his eyes,
then shook his head. "If only it could be like that again."